Hmm. I think that, while our vocabularies for describing the
issues are different, we are actually in almost complete
agreement. Inline below.
--On Saturday, June 13, 2015 14:39 +0100 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
We have rules. They are mostly vague and subjective, but
They are not markedly more vague or subjective than is typical
for this topic. The problem is with enforcement, not with the
rules.
In practice, yes. I think the form of some of the rules
contributes to the enforcement problem (and the "different rules
depending on we feel about the people" problem described below),
but there is no practical difference in behavior.
We almost never try to enforce
them when they appear to be violated, at least beyond private
or low-key requests/ advice that someone shape up.
It's worse than even that. We never enforce them, unless the
offender is a recidivist we do not like.
Technically, I don't thing "recidivist" [1] is the issue but
that the practical focus is on "we don't like" not on repeated
offenses. Again, a difference in how the problems are
understood and described, no difference in practice.
For recidivists we do like, we give them the mild warning and
never go further, pretending each offense does not
sufficiently cross the line or is new and they only warrants
another quiet, useless warning.
See above and note that if may not really match the situation to
characterize "mild warning" as "punishment"
...
We also have a recall
mechanism for removing people from leadership position who
have gotten out of hand, a mechanism that has never been used
to the point of actually removing someone from office.
Somewhat ironically, Nomcom regularly returns to office people
who regularly engage in offensive behavior.
Yes, I had noticed that. Somewhat separate topic, but
especially since the examples that various leaders set may be
more important than any amount of instruction about community
norms, the inability or unwillingness to understand these
issues, observe the behavior, and deal decisively with it may be
an even greater problem than others that have been more directly
part of this discussion.
FWIW, I also believe that we are far more often victim to
consensus by attrition than to direct interference with the
system or overt bad behavior.
Possibly a worthy topic, but it's quite separate from the
continuing tolerance and even encouragement of grossly
unprofessional conduct.
I would agree except that, when someone can "win" by exhibiting
sufficient grossly unprofessional conduct to drive most of the
people who disagree out of the discussion and then claiming
consensus, it is one of the things that encourages that
behavior. More generally, any time that someone exhibits
unprofessional conduct and that produces the results that the
person desired and does so without negative consequences to that
person, it reinforces the bad conduct.
Again:
We have rules concerning acceptable behavior. We do not
enforce them. Perhaps they need strengthening, but we aren't
even using the ones we have.
...
If I disagree about anything in your list, it is only because I
suspect that there might be a counterexample or two to some of
those cases. I even know of a few. On the other hand, I don't
think a change from "never" to "hardly ever" changes anything of
significant.
...
[*] This includes for offenses we class as harassment, taken
to the Ombud. To date, this has been an entirely ineffective
channel.
Concur. At the same time, to the extent to which the intended
model for dealing with harassment is to quietly educate and
correct the bad behavior, the greatest successes would be the
ones the community never hears about (see note [1] below).
best,
john
[1] Technically, the problem people you are referring to are
not "recidivists" and that may be exactly the problem. That
term, as I understand it, would normally apply to someone who
have been caught and punished already; the point you make below
is that we never, or substantially never, punish anyone we do
like (or, I'd suggest, have learned to tolerate, perhaps because
of some offsetting advantages like having interesting things to
say). This distinction is important as long as a lot of the
community's thinking is tied to "try to get people to understand
the consequences of their behavior and reform" rather that
punishment and the hope that it would either correct or deter
bad behavior.
Independent of the IETF, that model does not have a good record
of success.